A friend’s take on criticism of critical race theory: Eff theories. There is only history, and if it fills you with self-loathing, that's all on you. History don't care what you think. I have a suggestion. If someone wants to criticize critical race theory, they should first be able to define the term, and then cite the factual errors CRT promotes. Short of that, there's really not much to discuss.
I agree, you should really study what it is before defending it.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Jun 19, 2021 - 12:14pm
A friendâs take on criticism of critical race theory:
Eff theories. There is only history, and if it fills you with self-loathing, that's all on you. History don't care what you think. I have a suggestion. If someone wants to criticize critical race theory, they should first be able to define the term, and then cite the factual errors CRT promotes. Short of that, there's really not much to discuss.
I have always been fascinated by the rebellions of the 1960s. One of the things that I argued in my first book was that the launch of the War on Crime and the modernization and expansion of American law enforcement was really not in reaction to the kind of unprecedented âcrime waveââthat we know was false, and that policymakers citedâbut the reality and the threat of Black rebellion. As I was researching the first book, I kept on encountering these moments of continued rebellion into the late 60s and early 1970s as the War on Crime was officially being launched.
I happened to come across, shortly after my first book was published, this amazing archive of news clippings that documented all of these smaller-scale rebellions at the local level. At the time the narrative was that the rebellions peaked during the summer of 1967, and then the wave of rebellions that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King was kind of the last hurrah, and after that, urban political urban violence was effectively stamped out. And this proves not to be the case. We know, based on this archive and my research, that there were nearly 2,000 rebellions in segregated Black neighborhoods between the passage of the Safe Streets Act in June 1968 and through 1972, whereas in the earlier decade from 1962 to the Martin Luther King rebellions, there were only about 300. So these things actually increased in scope and frequency. (...)
Christian Davenport, who had just joined the Department of Political Science, was there and he was working on a retrospective of the 1967 Detroit rebellion. I started talking about, âDid you know that, you know this, that this violence went into the 70s, and I came across some of this,â and he was like, âActually, I happen to have an archive that documents all of these incidents, and they went well into almost the mid-70s.â And he happened to be gifted the records of the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence, which was established after John F. Kennedy was assassinated to track incidents of violence in American society. So they collected news clippings and started compiling quantitative data on everything from labor struggles to school disturbances to Black rebellions, you name it, any incidents of violence, they put in this archive.
I went to this archive and there are just tens of thousands of pretty unorganized folders of these local newspaper clippings that you wouldnât get anywhere else. When you see this all together, you realize that this was a real phenomenon. It wasnât just a big city phenomenon. It happened everywhere. And it wasnât just a northern phenomenon. It happened in southern states. It happened in the Rust Belt and it happened in the industrial Midwest. It happened in tiny cities. (...)
It really just underscores this historical falsehood that weâve been telling ourselves, that this violence went away, or that it peaked in the late 60s. No, it peaked after the programs of the War on Crime hit the ground, after smaller, urban, mid-sized city, local police forces were suddenly receiving surplus weapons and tanks from Vietnam.
The most kind of visible community reaction to the policing of targeted low-income communities of color was to fight back, was to throw rocks and bottles at police officers who were policing parties and arresting people for seemingly arbitrary reasons, was to burn the building of housing projects that werenât effectively getting rid of rats and roaches in peopleâs homes. These were fundamentally rooted in the conditions of inequality and the status of second-class citizenship, even after the enactment of monumental civil rights legislation earlier in the 1960s.
âAll it says is you canât teach critical race theory in K-12 or higher education in the state of Alabama,â Pringle said.
When asked what that meant, Pringle claimed â incorrectly â that it âteaches that certain children are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, period.â
According to Education Week, critical race theory is a concept that says racism âis not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.â
do you think he probably recognizes the horrors of all marxist/communist spawn?
or does he consider it black roses delivered to uncle sam?
sometimes he can be difficult to read
An excerpt of Putin's comments from the link:
âAmerica just recently faced a very difficult situation after the murder of an African-American and the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement. I'm not going to comment on it right now, but I just want to say that what we saw â pogroms, violations of the law, and so on. We sympathize with the Americans and the American people. But we don't want this to happen on our territory. And we will do everything possible to prevent this from happening."
That weaselly POS is playing holier-than-thou. Pogroms? The violence and unrest attending the BLM protests were not pogroms. Pogroms are ethnic and racial cleansings caused by police and established powers against minorities. Russia was famous for its pogroms. It's amusing and indicative of Putin's limited worldview that he uses a word for Russian top-down repression to mis-characterize popular protests in the US.
Putin can't stomach protests against his power or the corruption of his government. So he murders journalists, imprisons political rivals, quashes popular protests and does everything to hold onto power.
Putin will claim black is white, day is night to justify his despotism. Do not let his lies confuse you.
A federal board on Thursday approved the renaming of 16 sites in Texas whose names include the word âNegro,â a change long sought by politicians and activists in the state, but one that will affect only a small fraction of the hundreds of racist names of towns and geographical features that remain in the United States.
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names, a committee of the Department of the Interior, signed off on the name changes weeks after lawmakers in Texas unanimously passed a bill urging the board to approve them. (...)
The United States has a long history of towns and geographical features with racist names, and recent decades are dotted with efforts to change them. Many have been renamed, but other efforts have been met with resistance, often by locals who take pride in their history and see no reason to change.
âPeople chose to give these offensive names to roads and rivers and creeks because they wanted to make a statement, a statement that would go beyond their voice, beyond that generation,â Mr. Ellis said. âIf itâs a statement that is not something we want people to emulate, we should recognize that.â
In January, 2011, the House of Representatives undertook a recitation of the United States Constitution on the House floor. Lawmakers started with âWe the Peopleâ and took turns reading the text aloud for the next hour and a half. Orchestrated by a new Republican majority to perform devotion to the Constitution, the exercise excluded some provisions, including ones that supported slavery: the three-fifths clause, which says that an enslaved person counts as âthree-fifthsâ of a person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives and taxes, and the fugitive-slave clause, which commands that an enslaved person âescaping into anotherâ state, regardless of its laws, âshall be deliveredâ back to the slave owner. The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery after the Civil War, was read aloud by Representative John Lewis. But Representative James Clyburn, the top-ranking Black congressman, refused to participate in the reading, calling the choice to omit provisions ârevisionist history.â Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., similarly objected that the âredacted constitutional reading gives little deference to the long history of improving the Constitutionâ through âthe blood, sweat and tears of millions of Americans.â
A decade later, during the nationwide grappling with racial injustice that followed the murder of George Floyd, I saw a striking Twitter discussion among professors of constitutional law, a course that I also teach. They were debating whether much of the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford should be excised from constitutional-law courses. In the case, which Scott brought in federal court to assert his freedom from enslavement, the Supreme Court held, in 1857, that Scott did not have the privilege to bring the suit because, as a Black person, he could not be a âcitizenâ within the meaning of the Constitution. Matthew Steilen, a law professor at the University at Buffalo, launched the Twitter thread and advocated for editing the case down to a minimalistic page or so, to omit text that is âso gratuitously insulting and demeaning.â He wondered whether assigning that material is asking students âto relive the humiliation of Taneyâs language as evidence of his doctrine of white supremacy.â
The Dred Scott case addressed the moral and political struggle that in those years was threatening to tear the United States apart: whether slavery would be allowed in newly acquired territories. The man who enslaved Scott had taken him from Missouri, a slave state, to live in Illinois, a free state, and in a federal territory (present-day Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and parts of the Dakotas) where Congress had made slavery unlawful. Scott claimed that his stay in Illinois and the territory had emancipated him; a common-law doctrine said slaveholders who intentionally transported enslaved people into free jurisdictions freed them, regardless of intent.
The problem, though, was that, under the Constitution, in order to bring the lawsuit in the first place, one had to be a âcitizen.â To arrive at the conclusion that Scott was not one, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney zeroed in on the statement in the Declaration of Independence that it was âself-evidentâ âthat all men are created equalâ and âendowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.â If the Founding Fathers intended to include Black people in that declaration while personally enslaving them, Taney reasoned, that would mean that the Founding Fathers were hypocrites who âwould have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.â But Taney found it impossible that these âgreat menâ acted in a manner so âutterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted.â So he concluded, instead, that their intent was to exclude Black people from the American political community. Of the two possibilities, grotesque hypocrisy or white supremacy, Taney found the latter far more plausible.
Indeed, Taney, a former Maryland slaveholder, said the language of equality and rights âwould not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.â The âunhappy black race,â he wrote, was ânever thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.â Most notoriously, Taney wrote that Blacks were âregarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.â He also noted that the Constitution itself took slavery as a given in the fugitive-slave clause, and the slave-trade clause, prohibiting Congress to abolish the âMigration or Importation of such Personsâ before 1808 and allowing an import tax of up to âten dollars for each Person.â Taney took this as evidence that the countryâs founding document did not confer on Black people âthe blessings of liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully provided for the citizen (...)